Maybe they should try having him fight less ridiculous villains. Just normal, evil guys. Drug cartels, human traffickers, corrupt cops. Dangerous men with guns versus a gutsy teenager armed only with the powers of an arachnid.

As soon as this movie became about a giant lizard tearing shit up, the human drama began to ebb away at a steady rate. Sometimes over the top is just boring. "Find my uncles killer? Sorry, I've got to fight a giant lizard instead".

This is what I wanted from Sandman. Giving him a sick daughter is fine if we hadn't had "misunderstood villain" twice in a row.

I wanted a ruthless thief taking advantage of his powers. Great power, no responsibility.

I think that's kind of where Raimi tried to go with Venom, but ultimately failed to make it resonate (pun intended). The tragic villains did get to be a bit much. A power mad, maniacal scene crewing antagonist is what these movies scream for. It really seems odd to me in retrospect, that Raimi never went that route.

I don't know, Green Goblin kind of had that going, but the Osborn half of the personality ended up hamstringing it.

Mike's Pants, Yeah, and Spider-Man even let Sandman...Get Away, despite all the deaths and destruction he caused. UGH! Also Doc Ock as a sympathetic villain? Double...UGH!! Doc Ock is one of Spider-Man's most...EEEEEEEEEEvil Foes! Venom was...EEEEEEEEEvil, but that was it. He wasn't Eddie Brock, he was a Wimp that got super powers. The Amazing Spider-Man has many faults, but The Lizard isn't one of them.

The reappraisal of Spider-Man 3, while I understand your mind being boggled by it, is really due to distance.

The awful things in Spider-Man 3 are still really awful. And while that hasn't faded away, some of us have decided to look upon what it did well more fondly...

TO SHIT ON AMAZING SPIDER-MAN. OHOHOHOHOH. (similar to the way those who never really liked Raimi's films are using the new movie to shit on them a bit)

No no no, wait wait wait... While that's true, it's also because some of us have decided to appreciate the tone/spirit that Raimi's films had, particularly when it seemed like most things were taking a more Nolan-ish approach to superheroes (at least till The Avengers).

And Spider-Man 3 was really trying to do something. It largely failed in a most frustrating way, but that effort has value in light of...

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN'S POINTLESS AND CYNICAL CASH-GRAB. OHOHOHOHOH

Interestingly, a similar thing happened to me with Danny Boyle's SUNSHINE in light of PROMETHEUS. I'm more forgiving of the former's third act issues in light of the latter. And I still enjoyed Prometheus!

The bottom line is, even if the Raimi films had never existed, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is not a good movie. It's poorly structured, tonally inconsistent and huge plot threads don't pay off or are just left hanging. I can understand if you find enjoyment in what the film gets right, but I really don't know how you can defend it on a storytelling level.

The reappraisal of Spider-Man 3, while I understand your mind being boggled by it, is really due to distance.

The awful things in Spider-Man 3 are still really awful. And while that hasn't faded away, some of us have decided to look upon what it did well more fondly...

TO SHIT ON AMAZING SPIDER-MAN. OHOHOHOHOH. (similar to the way those who never really liked Raimi's films are using the new movie to shit on them a bit)

No no no, wait wait wait... While that's true, it's also because some of us have decided to appreciate the tone/spirit that Raimi's films had, particularly when it seemed like most things were taking a more Nolan-ish approach to superheroes (at least till The Avengers).

And Spider-Man 3 was really trying to do something. It largely failed in a most frustrating way, but that effort has value in light of...

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN'S POINTLESS AND CYNICAL CASH-GRAB. OHOHOHOHOH

Interestingly, a similar thing happened to me with Danny Boyle's SUNSHINE in light of PROMETHEUS. I'm more forgiving of the former's third act issues in light of the latter. And I still enjoyed Prometheus!

You see; you call Amazing Spider-Man a cash-grab but isn’t that exactly what Spider-Man 3 was? Spider-Man 3 is a movie largely crafted by a studio who stopped Raimi from creating the movie he wanted and forced him to insert a villain he felt no love for, along with a new look for Spider-Man so they could shift some toys. I can’t blame Raimi for a lot of SM3’s mistakes because most of them were made by other people and then inflicted upon him, and the end result is a terrible, terrible movie. I can only assume that people enjoy that movie in the same way I enjoy Flash Gordon.

I’ve watched SM3 once and will probably never watch it again. I can see myself watching ASM again at some point because, although I went into that movie expecting to hate it, I was surprised to realise, by the time the credits rolled, that I actually enjoyed the movie. It’s a flawed movie, as I’ve previously noted, but I really like the performances (Sheen as Uncle Ben, especially) and it kept me entertained throughout. Hell, I even laughed at something Spidey did in that movie. I can’t remember laughing at all at Tobey’s version of Spider-Man and yet the humor was one of the things that drew me to the comic in the first place.

Spider-Man 3 is a cash grab in the way all studio blockbusters are: a studio trying to make money.

But in that general cash-grab and the struggle to placate the suits, Raimi and his screenwriters were really trying to tell a story about forgiving those who hurt us (something Gabe pointed out earlier). And for all its faults, that is a BOLD move to make in the third entry in a superhero franchise. It's in that spirit I can't help but admire what the Wachowskis tried to do with The Matrix sequels.

It wasn't enough that Raimi had delivered 2 huge hits (in addition to one of them being a truly great example of the genre) for Sony/Marvel. The guy still got fucked with.

The Amazing Spider-Man feels like a worse cash-grab in that it's a studio trying to hold onto a character, starting over for no reason, hiring a powerless and easily handled director, Twilighting it up a bit, selling it as an untold story but really giving us more of the same badly, and changing things up in odd and pointless ways.

From where I sat watching the movie, it felt like a story that had no point in being told. It exists almost literally to restart the property. That's why it feels so cynical.

And I didn't even really hate the movie. I found it watchable enough for the most part. But if movies have a soul, this was the very definition of soulless (like another Sony product this year: Wiseman's TOTAL RECALL remake). I can't say the same about Spider-Man 3. As botched as the execution was, there really was a story that was worth telling.

No question... I would revisit parts of Spider-Man 3 (and have). I have no desire to revisit any of Amazing Spider-Man.

(keep in mind, I've never read a Spider-Man comic in my life... all I've really done is watch the mid-90s animated show on Fox)

I think Amazing Spider-Man set up a more interesting storyline, that will allow for a more...Spectacular Spider-Man Sequel! Jamie Foxx might be...ELECTROfying, though he wouldn't be my first choice. Also, if you use Electro, why not add...The Shocker as well. They would be good together! Of course if the comics are followed...Green Goblin should be teaching Gwen how to...Swan Dive from a major New York Bridge in S-M 3! That scene should probably be...Shot in 3D!

Having finally seen TASM myself, I have to say that Nooj's analysis is 100% spot-on. This is absolutely the most insidious kind of revenue-generating project, the kind that's made with no other spirit in mind because the studio is in total control. Does anyone here really think Webb has any sort of personal vision or the chutzpah to actually fight to assert his vision amid studio dominance? Webb was at the helm, but he wasn't in charge, and that shows in every single frame of this entire waste of a film.

Spider-Man 3 basically plays out like a movie being made with honest intentions that suffered from heavy studio interference; it's not a great movie by any means but there's a lot to admire about it when we look past the presence of studio suits. TASM, on the other hand, feels like a clipshow comprised of what's hot, what's "in", and what has worked in other, far better superhero movies; the Twilight elements are there, you can feel the influence of grim 'n gritty superhero fare a'la The Dark Knight in both narrative and plot, and every major shot feels like it was cribbed from another film entirely.

I'm not sad that I missed this in theaters wholesale, but I'm kind of irritated that it turned out to be this much of a dud regardless. Garfield's well and good, Stone is Stone, and that's nice, but they and the rest of the cast are all working in service of something that's completely soulless and hollow. A paycheck gig is a paycheck gig, I guess, and it's nice to that the central performers will enjoy more visibility from this, but man that does nothing to make me feel better about the spirit of the production.

I think a lot of people are still looking at those first few scenes with Sandman as a gauge for the rest of the film.

Neither Spider-Man 3 or The Amazing Spider-Man are good films by any stretch, but I honestly see 3 as a larger failure than Amazing. Mostly because it could have, and should have been excellent but the studio destroyed it. It was a massive mess and a total letdown. With Amazing, however, we knew exactly what we were getting and were not surprised in the least with the end result.

A shitty film that you know will be a shitty film hurts a lot less than a film with huge potential that turns out shitty.

Spider-Man 3 is a cash grab in the way all studio blockbusters are: a studio trying to make money.

But in that general cash-grab and the struggle to placate the suits, Raimi and his screenwriters were really trying to tell a story about forgiving those who hurt us (something Gabe pointed out earlier). And for all its faults, that is a BOLD move to make in the third entry in a superhero franchise. It's in that spirit I can't help but admire what the Wachowskis tried to do with The Matrix sequels.

It wasn't enough that Raimi had delivered 2 huge hits (in addition to one of them being a truly great example of the genre) for Sony/Marvel. The guy still got fucked with.

The Amazing Spider-Man feels like a worse cash-grab in that it's a studio trying to hold onto a character, starting over for no reason, hiring a powerless and easily handled director, Twilighting it up a bit, selling it as an untold story but really giving us more of the same badly, and changing things up in odd and pointless ways.

From where I sat watching the movie, it felt like a story that had no point in being told. It exists almost literally to restart the property. That's why it feels so cynical.

And I didn't even really hate the movie. I found it watchable enough for the most part. But if movies have a soul, this was the very definition of soulless (like another Sony product this year: Wiseman's TOTAL RECALL remake). I can't say the same about Spider-Man 3. As botched as the execution was, there really was a story that was worth telling.

No question... I would revisit parts of Spider-Man 3 (and have). I have no desire to revisit any of Amazing Spider-Man.

(keep in mind, I've never read a Spider-Man comic in my life... all I've really done is watch the mid-90s animated show on Fox)

I’ll agree with some of your points, McNooj, but I’m yet to be convinced of this Twilight argument which is used by ASM’s detractors. Granted, I’ve not actually seen or read any of the Twilight stuff, but isn’t its defining characteristic that of a love triangle between three young people; the outcome of which is ultimately decided by the female? How does this relate to ASM? (Not trolling here, incidentally, I’m legitimately curious).

You’re right – ASM exists largely so the studio could kickstart a new franchise with the same character but that’s also true of The Incredible Hulk and I don’t recall the same level of vitriol aimed at that movie by certain movie critics or those who frequent websites such as this (for the record, I enjoyed both takes on that character). Besides, should one of the things on which we judge a movie be the factors involved in its conception and development? I’d argue against that.

You felt there was no point to the movie and I thought I’d feel that way too before I watched it, but I actually appreciated several of the corrections it made to Spidey’s origins by rebooting the franchise; notably the mechanical webshooters, the above-average intellect of Peter Parker, Spidey’s use of humor, and the fact that Gwen Stacy was his first true love instead of MJ. Of course, there are things which annoy me in ASM that Raimi’s first movie got absolutely right (the wrestling sequence and the nature of Uncle Ben’s demise) but I’m choosing to view ASM in the same way I view the Ultimate Spider-Man comics; it’s a slightly different take on a well-established story.

I probably wouldn’t be bothering to waste my time arguing on this movie’s behalf without the casting of the two leads. I think Garfield is perfect as the central character (and could really shine with better writing – it’s a shame we’re getting Orci and Kurtzman for ASM2 but I’ll try to remain optimistic anyway) and love Stone as Gwen. I do wonder how they’re going to replace J.K Simmons as J.J Jameson as that’s a damn near perfect piece of casting, but maybe they’ll pull a “Judy Dench as M in Casino Royale” and just hire Simmons for the reboot anyway.

I’ll agree with some of your points, McNooj, but I’m yet to be convinced of this Twilight argument which is used by ASM’s detractors. Granted, I’ve not actually seen or read any of the Twilight stuff, but isn’t its defining characteristic that of a love triangle between three young people; the outcome of which is ultimately decided by the female? How does this relate to ASM? (Not trolling here, incidentally, I’m legitimately curious).

You’re right – ASM exists largely so the studio could kickstart a new franchise with the same character but that’s also true of The Incredible Hulk and I don’t recall the same level of vitriol aimed at that movie by certain movie critics or those who frequent websites such as this (for the record, I enjoyed both takes on that character). Besides, should one of the things on which we judge a movie be the factors involved in its conception and development? I’d argue against that.

The Twilight argument isn't really much of an argument, I admit. It's really due to a cynical way of looking at this movie due to its cynical development process and execution. I don't know if anyone involved with the production ever mentioned the T-word while the film was in development, but that idea DID get out there. I remember CHUD articles about it. It's really just the idea of supposedly really focusing on the teenage angst/romance. There is no triangle in ASM, unless I just forgot about it.

The Incredible Hulk didn't get too much flack because most people really didn't like Ang Lee's HULK. I'm not a big fan of either movie, but I found Lee's take MUCH more memorable. Letterier's take on it left my mind as soon as I left the theater. But it IS much better than ASM!!!!

In terms of taking the development process of a movie into account when judging a final film? Normally, I'm against that. But when you're dealing with movies from the point of view of movie-fans (like us here), that just happens anyway whether we deny it or not.

Had ASM been actually good, NONE of that stuff would matter. But since it's absolutely not, it's simply more ammunition to use against it and rail against Hollywood business practices in general.

FINALLY saw this and...didn't pay one dime to Sony. A friend bought the blu-ray and loaned it to us to give it a watch. He liked it and thought I might like it. Guess what? Took three nights to watch it. Why? B O R I N G.

Shouldn't be called "The Amazing Spider-Man", but maybe "The Uninteresting and Listless Spider-Man" or "The Jerk Peter Parker is The Boring Spider-Man" or, "The Easily Bruised and Battered Spider-Man". First of all, Peter Parker was really a jerk in this. Like, unlikeable. As Spider-Man, he wasn't even funny. Even in a remotely "wise guy" way. He was annoying. Aw, really: I could go on. So many issues with this movie. But you know what? I'm so disinterested in it - in a real big "meh" way that I don't want to even bother to comment.

Yeah, I just got this from the library yesterday and watched the first half last night. I might finish it tonight. What an ugly and cheap looking movie. I have absolutely no interest in the sequel or Django Electro.

And I know he has gotten a lot of praise, even from people who don't like the movie, but Andrew Garfield is just.. awful.

FINALLY saw this and...didn't pay one dime to Sony. A friend bought the blu-ray and loaned it to us to give it a watch. He liked it and thought I might like it. Guess what? Took three nights to watch it. Why? B O R I N G.

Shouldn't be called "The Amazing Spider-Man", but maybe "The Uninteresting and Listless Spider-Man" or "The Jerk Peter Parker is The Boring Spider-Man" or, "The Easily Bruised and Battered Spider-Man". First of all, Peter Parker was really a jerk in this. Like, unlikeable. As Spider-Man, he wasn't even funny. Even in a remotely "wise guy" way. He was annoying. Aw, really: I could go on. So many issues with this movie. But you know what? I'm so disinterested in it - in a real big "meh" way that I don't want to even bother to comment.

I saw it. Didn't like it. At all. It's over. Gone.

*Opens bottle of beer*

I finally saw this yesterday, also didn't have to pay Sony a plug nickel for it. It was ok. I didn't hate it nearly as much as many here. It's just really atonal to what I expect Spiderman to be. The fact that both big action set pieces take place at night, and Conner's dastardly plan is to copy Magneto's stupid Xmen 1 play book doesn't help. I agree that Parker being pretty much a schmarmy angsty dick does not make me want to sympathise with him.

I thought the Lizard looked ok, but I was laughing at the scene where he walks out of Ozcorp (sp?) wearing a tattered lab coat. He doesn't have it in the scene before when he takes the mutagen stuff from Stacy. Where did he manage to find a lab coat to fit a 10 foot tall dinosaur man, and why is it tattered? If it was one of Connor's old lab coats, how in the hell did it ever fit? Sure, it was tattered, but it wasn't busting at the seams like a Golden Coral patron's pants.

I'm sure that's what it was. The Lizard in the 60's, 80's and 90's animated series always had a lab coat IIRC. Sure, it's part of his look, and works great, if he's not a 10' tall dinosaur. Also, how did Parker come across those custom holographic displays for his web shooters? E-bay?

Nitpicking details aside though, I will say I liked Sheen as Uncle Ben for the brief time he's in the film. Dennis Leary, not so much. He seemed like Waaaaayyyy too much of a hot head to be effective as Police chief or whatever his Commissioner Gordon character analogue was supposed to be. Gwen Stacy was ok. She and Garfield had at least some chemistry. But damn does she look like she was held back a few years. Mid Twenties and still in high school? Also, if MJ's in the next one are we going to see the 'Death of Gwen Stacy' story line mixed into the next film too?

Anyway, there were missed opportunities aplenty. The whole movie had this odd discordant mix of Dark Knight's dark "real-world" tone and crazy 4-color over the top stuff. I guess I didn't hate it, didn't love it, but Spiderman is such a crazy concept, that it really needs a director and production team who are willing to go for it. This film feels like they tried to shoe horn Spidey into Nolan's Gotham city. Obviously this movie's producers were trying to emulate the Dark Knight's success. Hopefully with the Avenger's success, the studio will be brave enough to move Spiderman back into the bright exciting adventure movies he belongs in.

I'm sure Marvel would love nothing more, but they just don't have the movie rights.

At least they can do what they like in comics, animation, and games.

Actually the Oscorp building was supposed to appear in the background of The Avengers but it didn't work out. After the Avengers everyone is trying to figure out how to jump on that money including the Spider-man crew. I wouldn't be surprised if they came to some kind of deal. I know The X-Men producers have expressed interest in some kind of crossover as well.

I hope to see it. I wish they would just trust the source material more. I'm not saying it's been 50 years of solid gold, but there's a reason the Marvel Universe has survived, and one part of that is its interconnectivity. Sony's not going to give up the Spider-Man money, but maybe they could share cost and profits with Marvel and crossover. Here's hoping.

I'd just like to point out that the plot of this film is identical to the pilot of Spiderman and his Amazing Friends, available on Netflix Streaming. The only difference is: it's not the Lizard, its' the Green Goblin!

Man, some seriously harsh buzz on this film around here. I finally got around to seeing it, and you know what? I liked a good deal of it.

It's absolutely got problems, and could have used some extra time re-writing or in the editing suite. Peter's personality and character conflicts are well-done for the most part, but I think some of that deleted footage should have absolutely been left in to make his journey clearer. Aside from a well-cast Rhys Ifans, the Lizard is a seriously weak villain, and the handling of Captain Stacy's death promise is problematic. On the one hand, I like that Gwen is one smart cookie and wants to make decisions for herself. But did they have to script it in such a douchey way?

But I like the world set-up, which has tons of sequel potential. Andrew Garfield is a better Spidey/Peter Parker combo than Tobey Maguire, who I liked but was directed to be too much of a stereotypical Hollywood nerd. Garfield feels more like a REAL nerd, the kind I am, and the kind that my friends are. He's also extremely funny and likable, especially in my favorite scene in the movie where he begins to discover his powers on the train. Emma Stone is great and has great chemistry with Garfield, though again that last scene is... troubling. Martin Sheen and Sally Field are a WONDERFUL Uncle Ben and Aunt May. I'm gonna miss Sheen, but I look forward to what Field gets to do in sequels.

Maybe it's a Nolan-esque cash grab, but it's a well-done one for the most part. Maybe if we have a better script next time, things will look up. Especially since we have Dane DeHaan and Jamie Foxx coming in as Harry Osborn and Electro.

I half agree with you that he's a cooler nerd and that's a good thing, but at the same time I feel like there's an element of Bella from Twilight. He's what nerds like to see themselves as, the cool, misunderstood sexy hero nerd, when really the reality is we're just fucking nerds.

Let's not bring Bella into this. Even in this film, Peter has 10 times the character depth and agency that the fucking Twilight characters do.

To me, it's not a matter of being "cooler". Raimi's Peter was kind of a typical "Hollywood" nerd, the kind of nerd that Raimi probably was and the image he grew up with in movies. Garfield reminds me more of myself.

Peter in the Raimi movies was the 60's comic book Peter, original gangster Peter. Garfields Peter is not really cool, per say. He's barely attractive, and honestly he's kind of a CUNT to everyone in his life... I just don't like the changes.